Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal held that furnishing only an arrest memo without communicating the actual grounds of arrest constitutes non-compliance with Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court recorded that “the said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest” and held that the failure to provide meaningful particulars violates the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court set aside the arrest and the remand order.

The appellant was arrested on 30 December 2024 in connection with FIR No. 33 of 2022 registered under Sections 384, 420, 468, 471, 509 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was remanded to police custody for a period of three days pursuant to an order passed on the same day.

Also Read: "Supreme Court Criticises 'Casual and Cursory' Quashing of Cheating Case, Orders Trial Under Section 420 IPC: 'Least Expected Was Reasoned Assessment'"

Through the present appeal, the appellant challenged the legality of his arrest and remand on three principal grounds. First, it was submitted that there was non-compliance with the mandate under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Second, it was contended that the appellant was not heard at the time of remand. Third, it was urged that the grounds of arrest, as mandated under Section 50 of the Code, were not furnished to the appellant, apart from a formal arrest memo.

The Court confined itself to examining the third issue: the alleged failure to furnish the grounds of arrest as required under law.

The appellant submitted that the arrest memo provided to him was limited to his name, place of arrest, and a general statement that the arrest was based on the statement of a co-accused. The appellant contended that this did not satisfy the requirement of furnishing the grounds of arrest.

On examining annexure P-3, the Court noted that the arrest memo was issued in the prescribed format, which is designed to serve as a general intimation. The memo recorded the identity of the appellant, the place of arrest, and a mention that the arrest was based on a co-accused’s statement. However, it did not contain any substantive particulars or reasons.

The Court recorded: “We are inclined to consider only the last issue raised by the appellant with respect to the non-furnishing of the grounds of arrest.”

Upon scrutiny of the arrest memo provided to the appellant, the Court observed: “What has been provided to the appellant is only an arrest memo in the prescribed format, which is meant to be given to the appellant by way of an intimation. It has been filled up with the name of the appellant along with the place of arrest. Additionally, it has been written that he has been arrested based upon the statement of the co-accused.”

The Court accepted the contention raised on behalf of the appellant, stating: “We are in agreement with the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the said arrest memo cannot be construed as grounds of arrest, as no other worthwhile particulars have been furnished to him.”

The Court referred to the statutory requirement under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest. The Court linked this requirement to the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest.

The Court stated: “This, being a clear non-compliance of the mandate under Section 50 of the Code which has been introduced to give effect to Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 we are inclined to set aside the impugned judgment.”

Also Read: Ragging Menace: Kerala HC Asks State Panel to Frame Prevention Rules, Propose Amendments to Strengthen 1998 Act

The Court also referred to its earlier decision in Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254, where similar issues regarding procedural safeguards in arrest were addressed.

In view of the above findings, the Supreme Court stated: “The impugned judgment stands set aside and the arrest of the appellant followed by the consequential remand order are also set aside.”

It further directed: “The appellant shall be set at liberty, until and unless he is required in any other case.”

The appeal was accordingly allowed, and it was directed that: “Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Siddharth Aggarwal, Senior Advocate; Ashish Batra, Advocate-on-Record; Gaurav Kakkar, Advocate; Arjun Kaushal, Advocate; Anukirat Singh Baweja, Advocate
For the Respondents: Bhuvan Kapoor, Advocate; Varun Chugh, Advocate; Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Advocate-on-Record

Case ttite: Ashish Kakkar Vs UT of Chandigarh 

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1518/2025

Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Rajesh Bindal

[Read/Download order]